"The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine."

Unfortunately for them, laws apply to everyone, conservatives and liberal and all points in between alike. Granted, I realize that they really don't intend for this law to pass. But it is too easy for conservative commentators to spin it as if they do intend for the law to pass. I think this kind of tactic runs a great risk of backfiring for that reason.

Of course there is also the slight possibility of the unintended consequence that the initiative actually gets voted in by the public, which would probably not win many fans for the same-sex marriage crowd.

Can this kind of tactic actually change anyone's mind? Or could it actually rub people the wrong way? I think there are probably better approaches than this.

(edited by ges7184 on 20.2.07 2033)

(edited by ges7184 on 20.2.07 2034)The Bored are already here. Idle hands are the devil's workshop. And no... we won't kill dolphins. But koalas are fair game.

I will be curious to see if some of the more hard right organizations in the country throw their support behind this initiative. On the surface this would seem to be the dream come true for many conservative Christian groups, particularly the part where having a child together constitutes a bonding in marriage.

What we are aboutThe Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance seeks to defend equal marriage in this state by challenging the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling on Andersen v. King County. This decision, given in July 2006, declared that a “legitimate state interest” allows the Legislature to limit marriage to those couples able to have and raise children together. Because of this “legitimate state interest,” it is permissible to bar same-sex couples from legal marriage.

The way we are challenging Andersen is unusual: using the initiative, we are working to put the Court’s ruling into law. We will do this through three initiatives. The first would make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or legal separation when there are children. The third would make the act of having a child together the legal equivalent of a marriage ceremony.

Absurd? Very. But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions which make up the Andersen ruling. By getting the initiatives passed, we hope the Supreme Court will strike them down as unconstitutional and thus weaken Andersen itself. And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric.

(edited by JayJayDean on 21.2.07 0551)Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....

*snip*

Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass. -- The Guinness. to Cerebus

A Canadian perspective: We had Mad Cow up here. The States banned the beef early on as a precaution. The Mad Cow crisis got cleared up. A few countries took back our beef...except for the US (as a precaution).